Vestigial arms do not provide extra attacks. That is what the discovery says. I am NOT using my vestigial arm to 'gain' an extra attack.
Vestigial arm makes the attacks based off of my BAB progression.
Therefore, if my BAB is +6/+1...and I use the Vestigial arm to make these attacks...I have NOT gained an extra attack from vestigial arms. I have simply used the arm to make attacks based off of my BAB progression.
The fact that vestigial arms frees up 'another' limb that incidentally allows me to make another attack with it is inconsequential.
The vestigial arm is NOT what is providing me with the 'so-called' extra claw attack.
The fact that the claw is no longer forced into wielding a weapon is what's allowing me to make the additional attack.
Believe it or not, I understand where you are coming from with the whole "my attacks just jumped up by 1, and thus that qualifies as the 'extra attack'...which violates what the vestigial arm allows". However, this increase in attacks is NOT gained from the vestigial arm.
It is merely a change in the conditions in which I am able to normally make my attack routine.
By your logic, you are trying to deny me the ability to make an attack that I would normally be able to make because you think the 'vestigial arm' is somehow granting me the extra attack.
It is not.
The fact that my other claw hand is free is what is allowing me to make the additional attack.
The restriction of 'no extra attacks' ONLY applies to the vestigial arm itself. It does not 'magically' prevent you from making attacks you could 'normally' make if all the proper conditions for those attacks have been obtained (namely, in the case of natural weapons, if your claw hand is now free to make an attack...the usage of vestigial arms DOES NOT prevent you from using that attack).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If, without a vestigial arm, you can make 3 attacks, you cannot make 4 with one. That's what the rule states, the devs have confirmed it, and you are yet to be backed up by the legions of other posters you expected, leading to the conclusion that you are in a tiny minority, if not the only person that thinks you can wangle an extra attack. If you remain unconvinced by my logic and the dev's authority, it's pointless for me to discuss this with you any further.
Happy gaming :)
show me a dev quote that supports your theory. Until then, consider this...
The restriction of 'no extra attacks' only applies to vestigial arms.
If I have a BAB of +6/+1...and I use my vestigial arms to make 2 attack at +6/+1...have I used vestigial arms to gain any 'extra attacks'.
No.
I have used vestigial arms to make my 'normal number' of attacks based off of my BAB. No extra attacks were gained from my vestigial arms.
The fact that I can make additional attacks from other sources (such as with natural weapons) is, as I said, inconsequential. Vestigial arms does not restrict my ability to use attacks from other sources. The restriction of 'no extra attacks' ONLY applies to the usage of vestigial arms themselves.
If I have use the vestigial arms to make 2 attacks as per the rules of my BAB progression...I have NOT used the arms to gain an extra attack.
I don't need support of the 'legions', to make my point clear when I simply have 2 or 3 people disagreeing with me. I am simply trying to inform you how the v-arms actually work.
I have never once seen a single dev post that supports this convoluted idea that the 'no extra attacks' clause can somehow place a restriction on ALL your attacks when the restriction is clearly meant to apply to vestigial arms themselves and nothing else.
Like I said mate, I'm out. Happy gaming though, and I hope you find more people who agree with you.
Cheers!
....thank you....like...seriously...thank you *cries with joy* lol
my only advise for the tentacle discovery is this: just treat the darn thing like a secondary natural attack.
For PFS, I would rule that a vestigial arm would never increase the total number of attacks you could make in a round as a two-armed creature—extra limbs that are "left out" are good for carrying things or the like, but won't and can't increase the overall attacks per round.-James Jacobs.
If you're playing in a different environment then your DM's opinion is all that matters. He thinks you might be able to get away with the third hand dagger claw claw bite with dm's permission, but not that you can put a claw on your third hand.
I have already established how none of my attacks are exceeding the normal number of attacks I can make given the limbs that are available to me. No rules are being broken, no corners are being cut, that's just the way it is.
I would be quiet shocked if PFS ruled that a player (for no reason) is not allowed to make his 'normal attack routine' given the conditions.
There is no need to clear this with a house rule or DM approval. This is just the way the vestigial arm works.
I have already established how none of my attacks are exceeding the normal number of attacks I can make given the limbs that are available to me
But you have exceeded the overall number of attacks that are available to a two armed creature: which is the entire point of why you want vestigial arm in the first place. Your total number of attacks is higher.
What do you think he means by "extra limbs that are "left out" are good for carrying things or the like," ?
As I said, gaining an extra limb does not grant me an 'extra attack'.
In other words, if my BAB is +6/+1, it does NOT becoming any of the following...
+6/+6/+1
Or
+6/+1/+1
Or
+6/+1/-4
That is what is MEANT by the 'no extra attacks'. Getting an extra limb does not suddenly allow you to make an 'extra attack' that you could not 'normally' make.
It's like a creature with 3 or more arms: such creatures can 'usually' make an attack with EACH arm regardless of the creatures BAB.
Vestigial arms specifically says you DON'T get to make extra attacks like that. In other words, you attacks MUST STILL follow the normal attack routine.
And how in your interpretation is the extra limb being left out?
I am not using the 'extra limb' to grant me an 'extra attack'.
I use vestigial arm to make 2 attacks (if my BAB is +6 of course)
If i use the vestigial arm to make 2 attacks (+6/+1) I have not used it to make an extra attack.
I am allowed 2 attacks...and I so I make them.
Not 3 attacks with vestigial arms...not 4 or 5...just 2.
As per the rules.
Thus, by making my +6/+1 attacka...have I used my vestigial arm to make any 'extra attack'?
The answer, again, is no.
Thus I have not violated the restriction (I restriction that, mind you, ONLY applies to the arm itself).
Look, you said ask a dev. Someone else that already told you that that wasn't how it works already did, and the answer is quoted above.
For PFS, the answer is no. Extra attacks is exactly what i said it is. Count up the attacks sesame street style. If you have more attacks with the vestigial limbs than without, you've gotten an extra attack. Merely redefining an extra attack to be something else doesn't change that. Claiming something is not establishing it, and your definition of extra attacks is radpily approaching "what is is" levels of sophistry.
If your DM says no, they have more than enough rules support. Live with it.
You do realize that the Dev quote you gave me does NOT contradict anything I say. James Jacob simply rules against putting claws on vestigial arm. The quote says NOTHING about preventing the alchemist from making attacks based on his 'normal attack routine'.
If you are relying on that quote to prove something in this discussion, you have effectively proven nothing at all.
|
I'm with Wolf and the devs - you can't use the vestigial limbs to get extra attacks, it says so right in the discovery.
Please note that yes indeed, you are getting extra attacks by attacking with all four limbs. Saying an "extra attack" is something that haste or something like that provides is not a valid argument. Yes, haste grants an extra attack. So does TWF. So does a high BAB, if you want to get super technical. An "extra attack" is not a term that is defined in the Pathfinder rules, meaning it's just defined by the english language. Extra: "Added to an existing or usual amount or number."
If you can make 4 attacks normally (dagger/dagger/claw/bite), anything above 4 that you're getting via use of the vestigial limbs or tentacle is, by definition, an extra attack.
As far as I can tell, anything other than that is either against the rules, or is a cheesy bending of the rules, and the rulings made in this thread and others by developers of the game. If your GM allows it, fine, but they have just as much reason to allow wizards to have a full BAB and d20s for hit dice.
I can see, once again, that a lot of people are ignoring what a normal attack routine is. By saying that a character with a vestigial arm is NOT capable of making the all the available attacks that they could make as part of the 'normal attack routine' is essentially BREAKING THE RULES.
i will state (again) that the 'no extra attacks' clause applies to the vestigial arm ALONE!
If I use vestigial arm to make 2 attacks (+6/+1) as per my normal attack routine...guess what?
I have NOT used vestigial arms to make an 'extra attack'.
Seriously...if my BAB is +6/+1, I am ALLOWED (by the friggin rules) to make 2 attacks.
The fact that I can now make my two claw attacks is 'inconsequential' because vestigial arms doesn't give me an 'extra claw attack'. The fact that my 'claw hand' is now free essentially is what grants my character the power to make that attack.
What a lot of you are suggesting is that 'even though' my claw hand is free...I still can't use it to make an attack. Your logic, for this conclusion, is the 'no extra attack' clause from vestigial arms...even though the vestigial arm has NOTHING to do with the fact that I can make a 'claw attack' if my 'claw arm' is free.
The very basis of your logic makes no sense, because you are effectively violating my ability to use my claw even though every rule states that I am perfectly capable of using the attack now that my 'claw arm' is not holding a manufactured weapon.
If I use vestigial arms to make attacks based off my BAB progression, and I do not make ANY extra attacks with my vestigial arms (since that is where the restriction applies) I am therefore not violating any of the rules.
I KNOW that my attack will increase in number, but the vestigial arm is NOT what is granting me the so-called 'extra attack'. As I said, the fact that my 'claw hand' is now free is what ALLOWS me to attack with it (as per the rules).
And one more thing...thus far, with every Dev quote that has been presented to me, not one of them have written ANYTHING that explicitly supports the opposition's stance on this matter. If someone would like to prove otherwise and provide such a quote on this thread, I'm all ears.
What a lot of you are suggesting is that 'even though' my claw hand is free...I still can't use it to make an attack.
Yup
extra limbs that are "left out" are good for carrying things or the like
The very basis of your logic makes no sense, because you are effectively violating my ability to use my claw even though every rule states that I am perfectly capable of using the attack now that my 'claw arm' is not holding a manufactured weapon
Every rule except the rules specific to your vestigial arm. Specific trumps general.
If you think that your ideas haven't been debunked by the devs you'll have to pose the question to them yourself, because everyone thats posed the question for you has gotten a no answer. They must be doing it wrong.
They must be doing it wrong.
Boy oh boy you have no idea how true that statement is ;)
...well, in response to that....I will simply refer to my previous post...
"They must be doing it wrong"
Brother...you have NO idea how true that statement is.
At this point, I'm basically getting the impression that no one is reading the posts I make (ah HA...I have figured out the conspiracy)!
Yes...I understand that my attacks 'will increase' (I am not denying this...never have).
However, my increase in attacks is NOT because I'm making an 'extra attack' with my vestigial arms.
Here's the million dollar questions: how many attacks am I making with vestigial arms if I have a BAB of +6/+1?
The answer is *drum roll* ....2!
Am I allowed to make 2 attacks given my BAB?
The answer is *drum roll*....YES!
Have I used vestigial arms to make an 'extra attack'?
The answer is *drum roll*....NO!
Therefore, have I violated the 'no extra attacks' clause for vestigial arms?
The answer is *DA DRUM ROLL*....NO!
Anyone confused yet? Or shall I summon more drum rolls :P
Believe me, your argument is simple in its bold faced audacity. We read it. We understand it. We all know what sophistry is.
That doesn't mean we agree with it.
You're making an arbitrary distinction between what counts for more attacks, and saying that the extra attacks you get from one method don't count as extra attacks. Everyone else is reading that extra attacks is extra attacks no matter where you get it.
Here's the million dollar questions: how many attacks am I making with vestigial arms if I have a BAB of +6/+1?
The answer is *drum roll* ....2!
And how many attacks do you want to make after taking the vestigial arm discovery? Four. (dagger dagger claw claw)
I had a little trouble with calculus but 4 is more than 2. You've got two extra attacks in there.
It doesn't matter if you're taking the attacks from BAB or extra natural weaponry, attacks is attacks. When you do the comparison you only look at one thing. Its like asking how many birds are in the neighborhood and only counting the owls.
|
I can make two Boot Blade attacks and two claw attacks,even at level one.
If I have the hands to do it, then how is it different than two dagger attacks, and two claws.
That is the exact same number of attacks.
No "extra attack".
By "extra attack", they mean more than you can normally do.
This was to prevent Marilith-like PCs who multiweapon fight.
This was not a line put in to somehow reduce the number of attacks you can make.
There is no extra attack being made.
How is there any room left to argue either positions? No, you cannot put claws on V-arms, sorry Dusk/grats Wolf. Yes, you can use V-arms to make iterative attacks with claws on your regular arms, grats Dusk/sorry Wolf. HE DESCRIBES BOTH SITUATIONS.
And below that he said he'd go with the sesame street counting method for PFS.
a restriction that applies to 'vestigial arms' does NOT apply to the rest of my attacks. In all my examples, the 'vestigial arm' ITSELF has NEVER ONCE provided me with an extra attack.
The restriction ONLY checks the attacks made with the vestigial arm. It does not impose restrictions on other attacks you could normally make.
This is an example of an 'extra attack':
Say I have BAB of +6/+1 and I have 2 claw attacks. In this example, I'm going to place a dagger in 1 claw hand and in my vestigial arm as well.
Now, when its time to attack, I use my dagger (the one that's being held in my claw) first...making 2 attacks.
I then make my other claw attack...and THEN I attempt to make another 'extra attack' with the dagger in my vestigial arm.
I cannot do this.
Do you know why?
Because in this case, I actually am attempting to make an 'extra attack' with the vestigial arm.
In my previous examples...I am not doing this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vampire
a restriction that applies to 'vestigial arms' does NOT apply to the rest of my attacks. In all my examples, the 'vestigial arm' ITSELF has NEVER ONCE provided me with an extra attack.
That doesn't make any sense. Otherwise if you did claw claw you'd be done. But if you did dagger dagger then you could claw claw. You have Schrodinger's extra attacks here. You know that 4 is more than 2 but for the first half of the round they're "normal" attacks but then they become extra.
The proper comparison is the total number of attacks. Not just some of the total. That's by definition not the total
rly? Where, pray tell, is that?
---------->>>For PFS, I would rule that a vestigial arm would never increase the total number of attacks you could make in a round as a two-armed creature—extra limbs that are "left out" are good for carrying things or the like, but won't and can't increase the overall attacks per round.
and thus I have my support *cuddles blackbloodtroll, Rathyr, Elamdri, and anyone else who has come to my aid*
THANK YOU SO MUCH GUYS!!! MUCH LOVE!!
Ah...okay...now I can go and get some sleep.
I'm really enjoying this thread.
As soon as I think I know what is possible within the rules I start getting doubts, then I think I finally got it...aaand then it goes!
Fun stuff!
I think its quite clear what the intent was with the arms and tentacles. By what SKR and JJ have stated, they weren't meant to give you the ability to use them for anything except as an elaborate bandolier for items.
I know this. However, I also do see how you can make them work to do more than just that within the game rules (ignoring RAI). I think this kind of thing is very important. We 'know' they're not meant to do this, but it's possible anyway.
On a unrelated/peronal note.
I don't really see the problem with allowing a alchemist to become a clawed multi armed, tentacled, fang-gnashing beast hopped up on mutagen. Sure, he gets a ton of attacks, might rip a few limbs off and such(if he ever hits). But honestly he's sacrificing so much to do this. Even if we give him Bite/Claw/Claw/Claw/Claw/Tentacle and compare him to an equivalent Fighter/Barbarian/Monk build its not really a fair comparison since the alchemist is still a horribly mutated murder beast at this point. Good luck adventuring when you are mistaken for a monster right at the city gates! I don't find the social stigma that comes from turning yourself into a monster is really taken into account here.
Its not even like a druid who wild shape fights. At least the druid can stop and just walk around like a normal fellow. The alchemist is stuck with his extra limbs and a slimy tentacle at all times! He's more liable to be killed by superstitious or glory seeking heroes than he is to ever be praised. He'll have to live in hiding, only coming out to kill or feed lest he risk bringing the kind of attention that gets you hunted down and killed.
I say give him the attacks. He'll need all the help he can get if he wants to start down this path.
But again, personal opinion, kinda unrelated to hardcore rules discussions. =D
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) So, the Tentacle must replace a possible Manufactured Weapon attack, Unarmed Strike, or Natural Attack?
2) Just looking to get it clear, as long as it is replacing a possible attack, then it fine?
3) Also, even if attacking with the Tentacle alone, and you have no other natural attacks, it is treated as secondary?
1) Yes.
2) I'm not quite willing to make that much of a generalization, but see #1.
3) The rules for natural attacks say that if it's your only attack in the round, you may attack without the –5 penalty for it being a secondary natural attack. The exceptions to this are called out in a monster's description, such as the horse's docile ability, which says its hooves are always treated as secondary even if they're the only attack (and then lists an exception to the exception if the horse is combat-trained).
I'm not going to get into specifics of comparing various monsters using weapons and natural attacks; monsters don't have to follow the normal rules for PCs and they're going to be inappropriate examples for determining what PCs are able to do because monsters break PC rules all the time ("how did that dark naga gain the spellcasting of a sorcerer 7 if it doesn't have any sorcerer Hit Dice?"). And like I said above, you don't just get to keep adding more attacks per round because you've found feats, class abilities, magic items, racial traits, or whatever that turn other body parts into natural weapons. The system isn't supposed to work that way and the individual parts weren't written assuming that you could just keep stacking feet, knees, elbows, wings, bites, foreheads, hips, and other body parts forever into a hundred-hit attack sequence.
Furthermore, the tentacle discovery explicitly says "The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round," meaning "count how many attacks per round you can make if you didn't have the tentacle... having the tentacle doesn't change that number at all." If you have 1 attack per round, the tentacle doesn't increase that to 2. If you have 2 attacks per round, the tentacle doesn't increase that to 3. If you have 3 attacks per round, the tentacle doesn't increase that to 4. End of story.
This is why they invented the 'hate of disguise' (lol). Also, never underestimate the ability of good ol' mundane disguises as well.
Personally, I LOVE the idea of an insane tiefling alchemist how basically mutilates his body and makes himself into a monster (probably out of some made desire to be a demon or something).
I especially enjoy this if the tiefling can also benefit from Enlarge Person as well, which will pretty much make him into a Balor almost (red skin, lots of claws, prehensile tail and wings...a VERY fun concept)
And trust me...5 primary natural attacks and 1 secondary natural attack is VERY powerful (even when compared to fighters, monks, and barbarians). Full strength modifier on almost every attack, with an insane amount of accuracy.
Trust me, tis a very good build...especially when combined with mutagen benefits, discovery powers, and extracts as well.
And like I said above, you don't just get to keep adding more attacks per round because you've found feats, class abilities, magic items, racial traits, or whatever that turn other body parts into natural weapons.
So, just to get a clear example. In both examples, the alchemist only has 2 levels.
A level 2 alchemist (BAB +1) selects the Feral Mutagen Discovery. If he doesn't have TWF or IUS or anything like that, and he full attacks with no weapons in his hands, how many attacks can he make? 1, because he can only make 1 attack normally, or 3 (1 bite, two claws)?
Same scenario except he has a shortsword in one hand, and full attacks. How many attacks? 1, because he can only make one attack normally, or 3 (one bite, one claw, 1 sword)
This could be a major change for a lot of people (and apologies to Ian if it is), so a clear example would be nice.
So, just to get a clear example. In both examples, the alchemist only has 2 levels.
A level 2 alchemist (BAB +1) selects the Feral Mutagen Discovery. If he doesn't have TWF or IUS or anything like that, and he full attacks with no weapons in his hands, how many attacks can he make? 1, because he can only make 1 attack normally, or 3 (1 bite, two claws)?
He can make 3 attacks: 2 claw attacks and 1 bite attack. That's pretty standard as far as rules go.
Same scenario except he has a shortsword in one hand, and full attacks. How many attacks? 1, because he can only make one attack normally, or 3 (one bite, one claw, 1 sword)
3.
Danke.
@ Sean
Alright...I'm following ya...but at the same time...I'm kinda losing you as well.
From what you seem to suggest, you explanation implies that A LOT of us on the forums are improperly combining natural attacks and manufactured weapons.
For example, if I two-weapon fight with unarmed strikes at level 1...and I also have 2 claw attacks as well as 1 bite attack...my guess would be that, at level 1, I have 5 attacks (this is possible with a tengu fighter).
my attack sequence would like like this
1 kick + 1 kick (from my twf with unarmed strikes)
and then
1 claw + 1 claw + 1 bite (all secondary natural attacks of course).
Am I doing something inappropriate with the above example, and if so, can you please explain what I am doing wrong?
|
The problem here was a wording issue.
It seems pretty clear that the problem with Vestigial Arms is Multiweapon fighting. The developers obviously didn't want people to try and argue that with 4 arms, they can Multiweapon fight like a Marilith does.
The problem is that I think they DID want to allow people to as someone pointed out earlier, perhaps have 2 different sets of weapons always available.
In doing so however, they had to find a way to allow you to attack with your Vestigial Arms, while at the same time, avoiding letting players use Multiweapon fighting.
To do so, they used the text "No extra attacks."
This is problematic because what exactly an "Extra Attack" is can be difficult to define.
As many people have posted here, as per the rules, Alchemists can gain access to numerous attacks. There is nothing wrong with saying that my alchemist is TWFing with unarmed strikes(Kicks) while making his Claws and Bite attack (at a -5). If I have a +6/+1 BAB and the Requisite Feats, that's 7 attacks in a full round attack (4 Unarmed Strikes and 3 NA).
However, if we are following the intent of the developers, I cannot hold two short swords in my hands, TWF with them, and then use my NAs. Because that would be getting extra attacks. Despite the fact that I could have the exact same number of attacks WITHOUT the Vestigial Arms.
And there are good arguments on both sides. One side can say that if Vestigial Arms worked the way I think they should, I could make Greatsword attacks while making claw and bite attacks.
On the other side, if I have sunk TWO class resources into it, doesn't that tax offset the power of Greatsword + NAs?
Personally, I side with Dusk that it SHOULDN'T work the way the developers want, because you aren't really gaining extra attacks (unless you try to Multiweapon fight, which I don't think anyone is arguing for). All you gain is the ability to fight with better weapons using those attacks. And ultimately, I don't see a character making 4 unarmed strikes at a 1d3 significantly more powerful than a character making 4 dagger attacks at a 1d4.
With that being said, the authority is not on our side from the looks of it, and while I think my opinion is right, it's meaningless without the authority to enforce it, so I will stop there.
@Sean
So can a tentacle replace as many attacks per round as you have? Or are you limited to substituting only 1 attack per round with a tentacle?
For example, instead of +6/+1 iterative attacks with a dagger, can you make +6/+1 attacks with a tentacle?
Or would it be +6 (tentacle) / +1 (dagger)?
Thank you for the clarifications.
I won't lie...if you can replace it with each attack you make...it WILL become busted.
After all, because everyone can make an unarmed strike...and u can basically combine unarmed strikes with natural attacks...then here is the issue:
With a BAB of +11 (giving u 3 attacks...or rather 3 'unarmed strikes' that any character can make...and they don't even need to be proficient with it)...u can basically get 3 'secondary' natural attacks...and if u have feral mutagen...then u can also make 3 primary attacks on top of that.
Now, a REAL abuse of the rules is if you say you're TWF with your unarmed strikes...which means you can basically make '4' attacks with the tentacle on top of your primary natural attacks.
I honestly am leaning towards Dennis's explanation that you can ONLY use the tentacle attack once per round...otherwise...it really does get busted.
|
|
I agree with a lot of what you say. I think they are only at 6 attacks though (+6/+1 base with another from TWF and 3 from natural attacks).
As many people have posted here, as per the rules, Alchemists can gain access to numerous attacks. There is nothing wrong with saying that my alchemist is TWFing with unarmed strikes(Kicks) while making his Claws and Bite attack (at a -5). If I have a +6/+1 BAB and the Requisite Feats, that's 7 attacks in a full round attack (4 Unarmed Strikes and 3 NA).
You are forgetting about Improved Two Weapon Fighting Feat.
I agree, it wouldn't "break the game", but I do know that natural weapons are typically restricted to 'one attack per limb per round' sort of deal. Like, if you use the 'tentacle limb' once...u can't use it a second time during the same round.
I think the real issue to consider is the fact that 'anyone' can make 'unarmed strikes' on top of natural attacks.
Therefore, at level 2 (with an alchemist), if u drink feral mutagen...you don't just have a maximum of 3 natural attacks.
If you include the number of attacks you can make with 'unarmed strikes' on top of ur natural attacks...your max number of attacks is actually 5 (two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes on top of your 3 natural attacks).
However, I'm getting the impression from Sean that there is something 'incorrect' about combining natural attacks and unarmed strikes in this method, and I'm honestly hoping he'll get back to me with the answer.
Trust me, tis a very good build...especially when combined with mutagen benefits, discovery powers, and extracts as well.
Well, I know that. I run a game where the vestigial arms and tentacle are treated as secondary natural attacks and allowed along with my primary claws and bite. He even has 'armor spikes' as a separate discovery, emerging once he gains the natural armor bonus from the mutagen. As you can see we don't really play RAW, but that's really to be expected given the 'most important rule' on page 9 of the Core Rulebook.
The fighter and monk in the group still do just fine and are not underpowered in comparison. Its not something to base all rulings off of, but my experience with it isn't bad.
You can't just hat of disguise your extra arms and tentacle away, since the spell is way underpowered for such an extreme morph. Granted, there are plenty of spells (especially at the levels where we have the extra arms and such) that can hide it. I personally have those spells work weirdly when interacting with the arms and tentacle. The price of admission is social stigma. Both I and the player agree that glossing over it with spells is lame beyond measure.
----
As SKR stated. Reading the rules as intended, is that the arms and tentacle cannot be used to gain any kind of attack gain/advantage/use. They're effectively item bandoliers and a 'freaky science' flavor ability.
I know this. And knowing this I change it for my games. Nothing wrong with that imo =p